What is a Motion for Forum Non Conveniens?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Forum Non Conveniens

Recent Rulings on Motion for Forum Non Conveniens

1-25 of 10000 results

MANUEL ALEJANDRE VS CAL-VILLA ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

The court should not issue terminating sanctions if there appears to be any justifiable reason, explanation, or excuse for non-compliance with the court’s discovery order.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

ARMEN G KOJIKIAN ET AL VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC

On February 2, 2017, AHM’s demurrer to the non-California warranty claims and to the Mag-Moss claim (to the extent premised on non-California warranty claims) was sustained without leave to amend, and AHM’s motion to strike was granted without leave to amend. AHM filed its answer to the FAC on March 17, 2017.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

TONY WATSON, ET AL. VS CAMI AUTOMOTIVE, INC, ET AL.

Motion to Quash Parties’ Positions CAMI asserts it is a non-resident, Canadian Corporation, and as a result, it cannot be compelled to produce a Canadian resident as a witness in California. Further, CAMI asserts numerous stay-in-place orders related to COVID-19 restrict any travel between California and Canada, which has prevented CAMI from traveling to prepare and present a witness, and from locating a responsive witness and documents for the subject 20-year old vehicle.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

HARVEY KREITENBERG, ET AL. VS MICHAEL ROSENBERG, ET AL.

SUBJECT: (1) Motion to Quash Service of Summons Moving Party: Defendant Ahavath Israel Congregation Resp. Party: Plaintiffs Harvey Kreitenberg, Eli Krich, Yoseph Chazanow, Eli Chitrik, and BErel Wilhelm SUBJECT: (2) Motion to Quash Service of Summons Moving Party: Micahel Rosenberg, Jose Herrera, and Ministerios Christianos Guerrero...

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

TONY WATSON, ET AL. VS CAMI AUTOMOTIVE, INC, ET AL.

Plaintiff relies on Toyota Motor Corp., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th 1107, in arguing the court cannot compel a foreign non-resident to travel to California for his or her deposition. In Toyota, the plaintiffs noticed depositions of five Toyota employees as individuals, not as corporate representatives. All five employees resided in Japan.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

MYMEDICAREBOT LLC VS. CONNEXION POINT, LLC

In addition, there is no evidence they have purposefully availed themselves of this forum’s benefits, and the controversy is not related to the any of their contacts with this forum. (McMichael Decl. ¶¶ 1-2; Caldwell Decl. ¶ 2; DePeppe Decl. ¶¶ 1-2; Bainridge Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.) Specially appearing Defendant Connexion Point has some minimal contacts with this forum. Connexion Point facilitates communications between healthcare carriers and end consumers, including those in California.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

ARIETTA VS. ROCK N ROBLES, INC.

A non-harassing supervisor who fails to take action to prevent harassment is not personally liable for harassment under the FEHA as an aider and abettor of the harasser, an aider and abettor of the employer, or an agent of the employer. (Id. at p. 1331.) P. Sieveke has set forth facts showing that P. Sieveke was not Plaintiff’s employer and that P. Sieveke did not personally perpetrate the harassment of Plaintiff. (Def. UMF Nos. 1-2.) P. Sieveke has met her initial burden of production.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

PTN OF RONALD WULFERDINGER

Proposed Order on Judicial Council Form GC-224 that contains specific, non- conclusory findings and the basis for each finding; factual basis must specifically state grounds of abuse, neglect and/or abandonment. Order must contain findings that (1) reunification with ward’s parents is not viable; and, (2) it is not in the ward’s best interest to return to his country of origin or last habitual residence and the reason for not returning.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

REVIEW RE: COMPLIANCE RE FILING ACCOUNTING.

Proposed Order on Judicial Council Form GC-224 that contains specific, non- conclusory findings and the basis for each finding; factual basis must specifically state grounds of abuse, neglect and/or abandonment. Order must contain findings that (1) reunification with ward’s parents is not viable; and, (2) it is not in the ward’s best interest to return to his country of origin or last habitual residence and the reason for not returning.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

HAWKINS VS. SAS RETAIL SERVICES, LLC

In addition, a total of no more than $5,000 for enhancements is sufficient and proper for a class and settlement of this size, considering the number of hours plaintiffs spent on this case, and considering that plaintiff Patricia Chagalla came into the case only after it settled, and so the risk of defendants’ costs being assessed against her was virtually non-existent, contrary to her declaration that counsel presumably prepared for her.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

CITY OF EL MONTE VS CHUN C LI, ET AL.

Smith (2013) 935 F.Supp.2d 993, a non-11570 case, is misplaced.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

LEAH ERBLICH VS MORRIS FRIEDMAN, ET AL.

Defendants have not carried their burden of demonstrating the non-existence of a triable issue in this matter. Based on the evidence presented, it appears appropriate for the jury to determine whether the Defendants had notice. The Court finds it unnecessary to address the expert’s testimony at this juncture of the case. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Defendants shall provide notice of this order.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

AJA STEEN, AN INDIVIDUAL VS IHS GLOBAL INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION

Discussion IHS moves to compel non-party Hawthorne Immediate Health Care (HIHC) to comply with a deposition subpoena for business records. IHS presents the following evidence.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

GENGUS SANBORN VS DELTA AIR LINES, INC.

Civil Code § 3294 authorizes the recovery of punitive damages in non-contract cases “where the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied . . . .” “Malice” means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HAWKINS VS. SAS RETAIL SERVICES, LLC

In addition, a total of no more than $5,000 for enhancements is sufficient and proper for a class and settlement of this size, considering the number of hours plaintiffs spent on this case, and considering that plaintiff Patricia Chagalla came into the case only after it settled, and so the risk of defendants’ costs being assessed against her was virtually non-existent, contrary to her declaration that counsel presumably prepared for her.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

630 SOUTH GRAND AVE LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS ARDASHIR FAROKHIRAD, ET AL.

., Chammas received from McDougall what appeared to be objections and non-responses. (Id., ¶5, Exh. B.) Chammas asked if McDougall was still requesting an extension. (Id.) On March 4, 2020, McDougall replied and confirmed Total Grill was requesting a 10-day extension. (Id., ¶6, Exh. B.) On March 4, 2020, Chammas replied “OK with the ten day extension” and advised that responses would be due March 16, 2020. (Id., ¶7, Exh. B.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

PHAIROH PROMSIRI, ET AL. VS INLAND VALLEY PARTNERS, LLC

Nevertheless, between June 25, 2019 and August 21, 2019, [Phairoh] successfully pulled out her tracheostomy tube at least four times with her right hand (her non-paralyzed side.” (Complaint, ¶22.) Plaintiffs have further alleged that “[t]hese mittens are not complicated; and preventing a patient from pulling out a tube or IV line is ‘Nursing 101.’ The mittens attach around the hand and wrist and allow the nurse to tie them to the bedrail at whatever length is safe.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

LILIA RIOS, ET AL. VS EDGAR G. VILLAMARIN

The Superior Court is open under “Here for You | Safe for You” Conditions and Orders Counsel are urged to use remote appearance technology LACourtConnect If it is indispensable for counsel to be present in court, face masks are mandated (unless a court orders otherwise) and social distancing rules are in force. Dept. A Burbank protocol ...

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

ANDREW SUGERMAN, ET AL. VS JOHN RICE

As such, for the purpose of this motion, Defendant has shown that there is no enforceable forum selection clause consented to by all the parties to the agreement. Fourth, Defendant argues that there are insufficient minimum contacts in California from December 2017 and after when he became a permanent non-resident of California.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RODRIGUEZ VS. VENUS GROUP, INC.

Further, are only non-exempt employees included? Is management included? In addition, there is no “preliminary” approval of a PAGA-only settlement, so the word “preliminary” should be deleted (as well as in ¶24 and wherever else it appears). Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the ruling to defendant unless it waives notice.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

KAIRI HARVIG VS VALERIO CHIAROTTI

Although CCP 2031.060(b) denotes a non-exclusive list, stating that "[t]his protective order may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions" (emphasis added), Defendant has not cited to case law that supports its contention that the instant circumstances fall in the category of "unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense" pursuant to CCP 2031.060(b).

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RONALD BALANAG, ET AL. V. LAPTALO ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.

Terms and Administration of the Settlement The non-reversionary gross settlement amount is $600,000. Attorney fees of up to $210,000 (35 percent of the gross settlement), actual litigation costs, and administration costs of up to $17,500 will be paid from the gross settlement. $12,000 will be allocated to PAGA penalties, 75 percent of which will be paid to the LWDA. The named plaintiffs will also seek enhancement awards of $10,000 each.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

OTTO TIELEMANS V. AEGION ENERGY SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

Allegations of the Operative Complaint in Tielemans According to the allegations of the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in Tielemans, Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly employee from approximately August 11, 2016 through July 2, 2018. (FAC, ¶ 24.) When Plaintiff applied for employment, Defendants performed a background check on him. (Id. at ¶ 25.) But Defendants did not provide legally compliant disclosure and authorization forms to Plaintiff and the putative class.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

OTTO TIELEMANS V. AEGION ENERGY SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

Allegations of the Operative Complaint in Tielemans According to the allegations of the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in Tielemans, Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly employee from approximately August 11, 2016 through July 2, 2018. (FAC, ¶ 24.) When Plaintiff applied for employment, Defendants performed a background check on him. (Id. at ¶ 25.) But Defendants did not provide legally compliant disclosure and authorization forms to Plaintiff and the putative class.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

RACHEL GALARAGA V. MORE PHYSICAL THERAPY, INC., ET AL.

Terms and Administration of the Settlement The non-reversionary gross settlement amount is $175,000. Attorney fees of up to $57,750 (one-third of the gross settlement), litigation costs not to exceed $20,000, and administration costs estimated at $12,000 will be paid from the gross settlement. $3,000 will be allocated to PAGA penalties, 75 percent of which will be paid to the LWDA. The named plaintiff will also seek an enhancement award of $7,500.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.